Tom Vogt wrote:
>
> Michael Motyka wrote:
> > While water definitely has structure and the structure is altered by the
> > presence of other substances it's pretty dynamic. The only persistent
> > structure created by their "work" is the business structure and the
> > cause is more one of profit margin and placebo effect than trained
> > liquids.
>
> the interesting aspect here is that while there IS some effect (people
> get better) it can't yet be explained by science, except by falling back
> to some empty catch-all phrases (placebo effect).
>
"Placebo effect" is an "empty catch-all phrase" only in so far as people
stop there with trying to explain the observations. This isn't really
true. I think the effect has spurred new research into how the body
heals itself. No doubt there are endless mechanisms to be studied and
people who, if properly overfunded by our tax dollars or by large
pharmaceutical firms, will study them. That is science.
> however (and this is
> where I think it gets interesting) science has an implicit rule that
> says "science can explain everything". large parts of the history of
> science consisted in molding itself to accomplish new explanations. I
> watch with interest seing how the currently unexplainable will become
> explainable not because it changed, but because science changed.
>
Though there are the standard human behaviors ( resistance to change,
envy, greed, ignorance...whatever ) involved in the scientific pursuits
so that, at times, science appears to be a religion, presented as
unchanging, unchallengable, infallible, I don't think that science ( the
pursuit, not the noun Science ) has changed. I was tought that science
was the method of explaining the unexplained through observation and
inference. So no, science does not have an implicit rule that science
can explain everything, rationalists have an implicit belief ( ahah! )
that everything can be explained by applying the right methods. That
belief may or may not be correct but it sure has changed the world and
does not appear to have hit a brick wall just yet.
> in the end, a lot of recent quantum physics reads MUCH weirder than
> structured water. :)
>
Yes, I'm sure it does, but I'm still skeptical about training
macroscopic quantities of fluids at room temperatures for large time
periods. I think that the trained water idea is more a joke than a
fertile field of study. I'm fairly open-minded, though, so I am
embarking on a privately-funded study to teach the water in my pool to
alter its absorption characteristics so that it warms up faster. The
first training program involves "training" the water by introducing a
milligram of powdered carbon as a reward each time the temperature goes
up 0.1 degree C. The second part of the training program is to teach the
water to alter its vapor pressure through milligram doses of canola oil
which has a very low vapor pressure. This part of the program, if
successful, will allow the pool to better retain the heat gained through
the first training program and should lower my water bills. While in
larger doses these substances would have the desired effects I think
that a black, oily pool wouldn't be too appealing and I want all of the
benefits without any of the side effects.
Mike
